Public Matching Fund System Would Reverse the Importance of Small and Large Donors in New York State Elections

New CFI Analysis Released Today

New York State’s Governor Andrew M. Cuomo has proposed a system of public matching funds for state elections similar to New York City’s. The nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) today released a paper evaluating his claim that importing something like the city’s program is likely to bring greater participation and equality to the state’s campaign finance system.

This paper shows that matching funds have in fact achieved this result in New York City and can do the same in New York State. Michael J. Malbin, CFI’s executive director and a professor of political science at the University at Albany (SUNY), said that this co-authored work is based on years of CFI research into the role of small and large donors in federal and state elections.

Political campaigns in the United States are typically financed by a relative handful of donors. In New York State in 2010, only 6% of candidates’ money came from donors who give $250 or less. In contrast, 78% came from non-party-organizations (such as PACs) and individuals who gave $1,000 or more.

New York City has managed to shift this balance by giving candidates an incentive to turn their attention toward small donors through a program that matches donor contributions 6 for 1 up to $175. The study shows that a similarly dramatic result would be likely in state elections. It shows that even if matching funds brought no new donors into the system, the role of the small donors under a six-for-one system would shoot up from 6% to 30%. But that 30% number is almost surely too low. It assumes no new donors at all.

New York State’s donor participation rate is near the bottom of the country nationally. Only about one-half of one-percent of the adult population gives in any amount at all. By comparison, the typical state’s rate (as well as New York City’s rate in city elections) is more than three times as high. If the match would lead state candidates to attract just enough new $50 donors to bring participation up to the city’s rate, the small donors would be worth 54% of the whole.

This would be a dramatic change: from 6% to 54%. Small donors would be the most important financial constituents instead of the least important. If the goal is to connect candidates more strongly with the people they are supposed to represent, the case seems compelling.

The Campaign Finance Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute. Statements of the Campaign Finance Institute and its Task Forces do not necessarily reflect the views of CFI's Trustees or financial supporters.